6 - Dimaguila V Monteiro PDF

8/11/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME714
G.R. No. 201011. January 27, 2014.*

THERESITA, JUAN, ASUNCION, PATROCINIA,
RICARDO and GLORIA, all surnamed DIMAGUILA,
petitioners, vs. JOSE and SONIA A. MONTEIRO,
respondents.
Remedial Law Evidence Admissions Section 4 of Rule 129 of

the Rules of Court provides that an admission made by a party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require
proof, and may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake.Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of
Court provides that an admission made by a party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case does not require proof, and may
be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake. The petitioners argue that such admission was
the palpable mistake of their former counsel in his rush to file the
answer, a copy of which was not provided to them.
Same Same Same Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides
that through estoppel, an admission is rendered conclusive upon
the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon.Article 1431 of the Civil Code
provides that through estoppel, an admission is rendered
conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying thereon. The respondent
spouses had clearly relied on the petitioners admission and so
amended their original complaint for partition to one for recovery
of possession of a portion of the
______________
*THIRD DIVISION.
566
subject property. Thus, the petitioners are now estopped from

denying or attempting to prove that there was no partition of the
property. Considering that an admission does not require proof,
the admission of the petitioners would actually be sufficient to
prove the partition even without the documents presented by the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015679dfcc4244105f3a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
respondent spouses. If anything, the additional evidence they

presented only served to corroborate the petitioners admission.
Same Same Best Evidence Rule Anent the best evidence rule,
Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except
when the original is a public record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office.Anent the best evidence
rule, Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that
when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself, except when the original is a public record in the custody of
a public officer or is recorded in a public office. Section 7 of the
same Rule provides that when the original of a document is in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof. Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the
record of public documents may be evidenced by a copy attested
by the officer having the legal custody or the record.
Same Same Hearsay Evidence Rule The rule provides that
entries in official records made in the performance of the duty of a
public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.As to the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule
130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that entries in official
records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that
entries in official records made in the performance of the duty of a
public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the
inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the officials attendance
as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the
course of his duty. The documents trustworthiness consists in the
presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.
567
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Riguera & Riguera Law Office for petitioners.
Edgardo M. Salandanan for respondents.

MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court assailing the August 15, 2011
Decision1 and the March 5, 2012 Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA), in CAG.R. CV No. 92707, which affirmed

the August 23, 2007 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Santa Cruz, Laguna (RTC), in Civil Case No.
SC3108.

The Facts
On July 5, 1993, the respondent spouses, Jose and Sonia
Monteiro (Spouses Monteiro), along with Jose, Gerasmo,
Elisa, and Clarita Nobleza, filed their Complaint for
Partition and Damages before the RTC, against the
petitioners, Theresita, Juan, Asuncion, Patrocinia, Ricardo,
and Gloria Dimaguila (The Dimaguilas), together with
Rosalina, Jonathan, Eve, Sol, Venus, Enrique, Nina,
Princess Arieta, and Evangelina Borlaza. The complaint
alleged that all the parties were coowners and prayed for
the partition of a residential house and lot located at Gat.
Tayaw St., Liliw, Laguna, with an area of 489 square
meters, and covered by Tax Declaration No. 1453. Spouses
Monteiro anchored their claim on a deed of sale
_______________
1Rollo, pp. 2943 penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid,
with Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and Associate Justice Rodil V.
Zalameda, concurring.
2Id., at pp. 4445.
3Id., at pp. 144157.
568
executed in their favor by the heirs of Pedro Dimaguila

(Pedro).
In their Answer, the Dimaguilas and the other
defendants countered that there was no coownership to
speak of in the first place. They alleged that the subject
property, then owned by Maria Ignacio Buenaseda, had
long been partitioned equally between her two sons,
Perfecto and Vitaliano Dimaguila, through a Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition, with its southernhalf portion
assigned to Perfecto and the northernhalf portion to
Vitaliano. They claimed that they were the heirs of
Vitaliano and that Spouses Monteiro had nothing to do
with the property as they were not heirs of either Perfecto
or Vitaliano.
During the course of the proceedings, several incidents
were initiated, namely: (a) Motion to Dismiss for lack of
legal capacity to sue of Spouses Monteiro and for lack of
cause of action (b) Motion for Reconsideration of the Order
of denial thereof, which was denied (c) Motion for
Production and Inspection of Documents (d) Motion for

Reconsideration of the Order granting the same, which was
denied (e) Motion to Defer Pretrial (f) Notice of
Consignation by the petitioners in the exercise of their
alleged right of redemption of the share being claimed by
the Spouses Monteiro in light of the deed of sale they
produced and claimed to have been executed by the heirs of
Pedro in their favor (g) Motion to Remove Sonia Monteiro
(Sonia) as plaintiff, which was denied (h) Motion for
Reconsideration thereof, which was also denied (i) Motion
for Clarification and/or Extended Resolution and (j) Motion
to Suspend Proceedings due to a pending Petition for
Certiorari before the CA assailing several of the RTC
orders. The proceedings resumed after the promulgation by
the CA of its April 5, 2000 Resolution in CAG.R. No. SP
52833, which upheld the assailed RTC orders.
On January 2, 2001, upon resumption of the
proceedings, Spouses Monteiro filed their Motion for Leave
to Amend
569
and/or Admit Amended Complaint.4 The RTC granted their

motion. The amended complaint abandoned the original
claim for partition and instead sought the recovery of
possession of a portion of the subject property occupied by
the Dimaguilas and other defendants, specifically, the
portion sold to the couple by the heirs of Pedro.
Furthermore, only Spouses Monteiro were retained as
plaintiffs and the Dimaguilas as defendants.
In amending their complaint, Spouses Montiero adopted
the Dimaguilas admission in their original answer that the
subject property had already been partitioned between
Perfecto and Vitaliano, through a Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition, dated October 5, 1945, and that during their
lifetime, the brothers agreed that Perfecto would become
the owner of the southernhalf portion and Vitaliano of the
northernhalf portion, which division was observed and
respected by them as well as their heirs and successorsin
interest.
Spouses Monteiro further averred that Perfecto was
survived by Esperanza, Leandro and Pedro, who had
divided the southernhalf portion equally amongst
themselves, with their respective 1/3 shares measuring
81.13 square meters each that Pedros share pertains to
the 1/3 of the southernhalf immediately adjacent to the
northernhalf adjudicated to the Dimaguilas as heirs of
Vitaliano that on September 29, 1992, Pedros share was
sold by his heirs to them through a Bilihan ng Lahat

Naming Karapatan (Bilihan) with the acquiescence of the
heirs of Esperanza and Leandro appearing in an Affidavit
of Conformity and Waiver and that when they attempted
to take possession of the share of Pedro, they discovered
that the subject portion was being occupied by the
Dimaguilas.
In their Answer5 to the amended complaint, the
Dimaguilas admitted that the subject property was
inherited by, and
_______________
4Records, Vol. II, pp. 289308.
5Id., at pp. 315328.
570
divided equally between Perfecto and Vitaliano, but denied

the admission in their original answer that it had been
actually divided into southern and northern portions.
Instead, they argued that the Extrajudicial Partition
mentioned only the division of the subject property into
two and share and share alike. In effect, they argued the
existence of a coownership, contrary to their original
position. The Dimaguilas further argued that the Bilihan
did not specify the metes and bounds of the property sold,
in violation of Article 1458 of the Civil Code. Even
assuming that such had been specified, they averred that
the sale of a definite portion of a property owned in
common was void since a coowner could only sell his
undivided share in the property.
During the trial, Spouses Monteiro presented Pedrito
Adrieta, brother of Sonia Monteiro (Sonia), who testified
that Perfecto was his grandfather and that at the time of
Perfectos death, he had two properties, one of which was
the subject property in Liliw, Laguna, which went to his
children, Esperanza, Leonardo and Pedro. Pedro was
survived by his children Pedrito, Theresita, Francisco, and
Luis, who, in turn, sold their rights over the subject
property to Sonia.
Sonia testified that she was approached by Pedros son,
Francisco, and was asked if she was interested in
purchasing Pedros 1/3 share of the southern portion of the
Bahay na Bato, and that he showed her a deed of
extrajudicial partition executed by and between Perfecto
and Vitaliano, as well as the tax declaration of the property
to prove that the property had already been partitioned
between the two brothers.
Engineer Baltazar F. Mesina testified that he was the

geodetic engineer hired by Spouses Monteiro to survey the
property in Liliw, and recounted that he checked the
boundary of the subject property, subdivided the lot into
two and came up with a survey plan.
Crisostomo Arves, an employee from the Office of the
Municipal Assessor, presented a certified true copy of the
cadastral map of Liliw and a list of claimants/owners.
571
Dominga Tolentino, a record officer of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testified that
as part of her duties, she certifies and safekeeps the
records of surveyed land, including cadastral maps from
the region.
One of the Dimaguilas, Asuncion, was the sole witness
for the defendants. She testified that their first counsel
made a mistake when he alleged in their original answer
that the property had already been partitioned into
northern and southern portions between the two brothers,
as the original answer had been rushed and they were
never given a copy of it. She claimed that the mistake was
only pointed out to her by their new counsel after their
former counsel withdrew due to cancer. She further
testified that there was no intention to partition the bahay
na bato which stood on the subject property, in order to
preserve its historical and sentimental value.

Ruling of the RTC
In its August 23, 2007 Decision, the RTC ruled in favor
of Spouses Monteiro and ordered the Dimaguilas to turn
over the possession of the subject 1/3 portion of the
southernhalf of the property, to wit:
WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

plaintiffs and against the defendants:
a.Ordering the defendants and all persons claiming rights under
them to peacefully vacate and turnover possession of 1/3 of the
southern portion of the property covered by Tax Declaration
No. 1453, specifically described as A of Lot 877 in the sketch
plan marked as Exhibit I, within 60 days from the finality of
this Decision, failing which let a writ of possession issue
b. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and
solidarily, the
572
amount of P500 per month in the form of rent for the use of
the property from July 1993 until the property is vacated
c. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and
solidarily, attorneys fees of P30,000 and litigation expense of
P20,000.
SO ORDERED.6

The RTC found that although the extrajudicial partition
merely divided the property into two share and share alike,
evidence aliunde was appreciated to show that there was
an actual division of the property into south and north
between Perfecto and Vitaliano, and that such partition
was observed and honored by their heirs. These pieces of
evidence were the cadastral map of Liliw7 and a
corresponding list of claimants, which showed that the
subject property had long been registered as Lot 876
(northernhalf), claimed by Buenaventura Dimaguila
(Buenaventura), an heir of Vitaliano, and Lot 877
(southernhalf), claimed by Perfecto.

The RTC held that the manner of partition was
admitted by the Dimaguilas themselves in their original
answer. It gave no credence to the claim of Asuncion that
such admission was an error of their former counsel and
that she was unaware of the contents of their original
answer. It noted that the Dimaguilas had strongly
maintained their theory of partition from 1992 when the
complaint was first filed, and only changed their defense in
2001 when Spouses Monteiro filed their amended
complaint. It keenly observed that it was precisely their
admission which propelled Spouses Monteiro to amend
their complaint from one of partition to recovery of
possession. Thus, the RTC concluded that there was indeed
a partition of the subject property into southernhalf and
north
_______________
6Rollo, pp. 156157.
7Records, Vol. I, Exhibit A, pp. 2425.
573
ernhalf portions between Perfecto and Vitaliano and that

the Dimaguilas were estopped from denying the same.
As to the authenticity of the Bilihan, where the 1/3
share of Pedro was sold to Spouses Monteiro, the RTC
found the document to be regular and authentic absent any
piece of evidence to the contrary. It stated that the proper

persons to contest the sale were not the Dimaguilas, who
were the heirs of Vitaliano, but the heirs of Perfecto. It
noted that the records showed that the heirs of Esperanza
and Leandro (Pedros siblings), had signified their
conformity to the partition and to the sale of Pedros 1/3
portion.

Ruling of the CA
In its assailed August 15, 2011 Decision, the CA
affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
The CA found that Spouses Monteiro had established
their case by a preponderance of evidence thru their
presentation of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition,8 the
cadastral map and the municipal assessors records.9 It
noted, more importantly, that the Dimaguilas themselves
corroborated the claim of partition in their original answer.
It likewise ruled that the petitioners were estopped from
denying their admission of partition after the respondent
spouses had relied on their judicial admission.
The Dimaguilas also insisted on their argument, which
was raised before the RTC, but not addressed, that the
Bilihan should not have been admitted as evidence for lack
of a documentary stamp tax, in accordance with Section
201 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Citing
Gabucan v. Manta10 and Del Rosario v. Hamoy,11 the CA,
however, ruled
_______________
8 Records, Vol. III, Exhibit J, p. 519.
9 Records, Vol. I, Exhibit A, pp. 2425.
10184 Phil. 588 95 SCRA 752 (1980).
11235 Phil. 719 151 SCRA 719 (1987).
574
that if a document which did not bear the required

documentary stamp was presented in evidence, the court
should require the proponent to affix the requisite stamp.
The CA noted that the RTC had failed to direct Spouses
Monteiro to affix the stamp and merely reminded the
presiding judge to be more vigilant on similar situations in
the future. Nonetheless, it held that the petitioners did not
possess the necessary personality to assail the sale between
Spouses Monteiro and the heirs of Pedro because it
pertained to the southernhalf of the property to which they
had no claim.
The CA likewise found sufficient basis for the award of

rentals as compensatory damages since Spouses Monteiro
were wrongfully deprived of possession of the 1/3 portion of
the southernhalf of the subject property. It also upheld the
award of attorneys fees and litigation expenses by the
RTC, considering that Spouses Monteiro were compelled to
litigate and incur expenses to protect their rights and
interest.
In its assailed March 5, 2012 Resolution, the CA denied
the petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Hence, this petition.
Assignment of Errors
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL
PARTITION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY TAX
DECLARATION NO. 1453.
II
FINDING THAT THE 1/3 PORTION OF THE
SOUTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD
TO THE RESPONDENTS.
575
III
ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE EXHIBIT C, THE
BILIHAN NG LAHAT NAMING KARAPATAN.
IV
RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE
ENTITLED TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE 1/3
PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE
PROPERTY.
V
FINDING THE PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR
RENTALS FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FROM
JULY 1993 UNTIL VACATED.
VI
HOLDING THE PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES.
VII
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN
IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND TO GRANT THE

COUNTERCLAIMS INTERPOSED THEREIN.12

The Dimaguilas argue that their original allegation
regarding the partition of the subject property into
northern and southern portions was a mistake of their
former counsel, and it was not their intention to partition
the property because to do so would damage the house
thereon. Even assuming an
_______________
12Rollo, pp. 1314.
576
admission was made, the petitioners aver that such was

made only by some, but not all, of the coowners and that
partition can only be made by all coowners, and allowing
the admission is tantamount to effecting partition by only
some coowners. Spouses Monteiro themselves, in their
original complaint, made an admission that they were co
owners of the property and asserted that there was no
partition. The evidence aliunde considered by the RTC,
consisting of the cadastral map and the list of claimants,
were timely objected to during the trial as hearsay and a
violation of the best evidence rule.
The petitioners reiterate that the Bilihan should not
have been admitted into evidence because it lacked the
documentary stamp tax required by Section 201 of the
NIRC, providing that no document shall be admitted in
evidence until the requisite stamps have been affixed
thereto. They argue that the ruling of petitioners lack of
personality to assail the deed of sale is different from the
issue of the deed of sales admissibility as evidence. They
conclude that considering that no documentary stamp was
ever affixed on the deed of sale, such should never have
been admitted into evidence and consequently, should not
have been relied upon by the lower courts to prove the sale
of 1/3 of the southern portion and that considering that the
Bilihan is inadmissible as evidence, the respondent
spouses have no basis for their claim to the subject 1/3
portion of the southernhalf of the property. Thus, they
insist that the lower courts erred in awarding to Spouses
Monteiro the possession of the subject property, the
rentals, attorneys fees and litigation expenses, and in
failing to rule on their counterclaim for demolition of
improvements and payment of damages.
The assignment of errors boils down to two main issues:

1.Whether there was a partition of the subject property
and
577
2. Whether the 1/3 portion of the southernhalf of the

subject property was sold to the respondent spouses.

Ruling of the Court
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the petitioners
assignment of errors calls for the Court to again evaluate
the evidence to determine whether there was a partition of
the property and whether the 1/3 portion of the southern
half was sold to the respondent spouses. These clearly
entail questions of fact which are beyond the Courts ambit
of review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, especially
considering that the findings of fact of the RTC were
affirmed by the CA.13 On this ground alone, the present
petition must be denied. Nonetheless, the Court shall delve
into these factual issues to finally put this case to rest.

Partition of the Subject Property
Spouses Monteiro, as plaintiffs in the original case, had
the burden of proof to establish their case by a
preponderance of evidence, which is the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side, synonymous
with the term greater weight of the evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which
is offered in opposition thereto.14
To prove their claim of partition, the respondent spouses
presented the following: (1) the Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition, dated October 5, 1945, executed by and between
the brothers Perfecto and Vitaliano (2) the cadastral map
of Liliw
_______________
13Heirs of Vda. Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Fajardo, G.R. No. 184966, May
30, 2011, 649 SCRA 463, 470.
14Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Royeca, 581 Phil. 188, 194
559 SCRA 207, 215 (2008).
578
Cadm484,15 dated August 6, 1976, showing that the

subject property had been divided into southern and
northern portions, registered as Lot Nos. 876 and 877 and

(3) the Municipal Assessors records16 showing that the
said lots were respectively claimed by Buenaventura and
Perfecto.
It is undisputed that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition
stated that Perfecto and Vitaliano agreed to divide
between them into two and share and share alike the
subject property, including the house situated thereon. It
appears, however, that the property was actually
partitioned into definite portions, namely, southern and
northern halves, as reflected in the cadastral map of Liliw,
which were respectively claimed by an heir of Vitaliano and
Perfecto himself. It, thus, appears that the subject property
had already been partitioned into definite portions more
than 20 years prior to the original complaint for partition
filed in 1993, and that such division had been observed by
the brothers heirs. As earlier pointed out, the petitioners
themselves admitted to this very fact in their original
answer, to wit:
(b) On September 5, 1945 the brothers PERFECTO and

VITALIANO DIMAGUILA executed a deed of
EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION of the aforedescribed
property dividing the same into two (2) equal parts as
indicated in the aforesaid deed as follows, to wit:
xxx
(c) As a result of the foregoing partition and as known by
all the parties in this case from the beginning or as soon as
they reached the age of discernment PERFECTO
DIMAGUILA became the sole and exclusive owner of the
southern half of the aforedescribed property and
VITALIANO DIMAGUILA became the
_______________
15Records, Vol. III, Exhibit J, p. 519.
16Records, Vol. III, Exhibit L, p. 556.
579
sole owner of the northern half of the same property the

house that was built thereon and still existing up to this
time was likewise equally divided between the two (2)
DIMAGUILA brothers in accordance with the extrajudicial
partition of half equal shares
xxx
2. In other words, the share of VITALIANO DIMAGUILA
in the above described property has already been long
segregated and had passed on to his heirs as is very well
known by all the parties in this case17
xxx
(Emphases in the Original)

Section 418 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides
that an admission made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case does not require proof, and
may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake. The petitioners argue that such
admission was the palpable mistake of their former counsel
in his rush to file the answer, a copy of which was not
provided to them. Petitioner Asuncion testified:
Q So, why was that allegations (sic) made in the Answer?
A May be, (sic) in his rush to file the Answer, Atty. Paredes filed the
same without giving us a copy19
_______________
17Records, Vol. I, pp. 1112.
18Section 4. Judicial admissions.An admission, verbal or written,
made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does
not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made.
19TSN, December 1, 2005, p. 15.
580
This contention is unacceptable. It is a purely self

serving claim unsupported by any iota of evidence. Bare
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof.20 Furthermore, the Court notes that
this position was adopted by the petitioners only almost
eight (8) years after their original answer was filed, in
response to the amended complaint of the respondent
spouses. In their original answer to the complaint for
partition, their claim that there was already a partition
into northernhalf and southernhalf portions, was the very
essence of their defense. It was precisely this admission
which moved the respondent spouses to amend their
complaint. The petitioners cannot now insist that the very
foundation of their original defense was a palpable
mistake.
Article 143121 of the Civil Code provides that through
estoppel, an admission is rendered conclusive upon the
person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon. The respondent spouses
had clearly relied on the petitioners admission and so
amended their original complaint for partition to one for
recovery of possession of a portion of the subject property.

Thus, the petitioners are now estopped from denying or
attempting to prove that there was no partition of the
property.
Considering that an admission does not require proof,
the admission of the petitioners would actually be sufficient
to prove the partition even without the documents
presented by the respondent spouses. If anything, the
additional evidence they presented only served to
corroborate the petitioners admission.
The petitioners argue that they timely objected to the
cadastral map and the list of claimants presented by the re
_______________
20Rosaroso v. Soria, G.R. No. 194846, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 232.
21 Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying thereon.
581
spondent spouses, on the ground that they violated the rule

on hearsay and the best evidence rule.
Anent the best evidence rule, Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court provides that when the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself, except
when the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.22 Section 7 of
the same Rule provides that when the original of a
document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.23
Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of public
documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody or the record.24
_______________
22 Section 3. Original document must be produced exceptions.
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the
following cases:
xxx
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
23Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public
record.When the original of document is in the custody of public officer
or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified

copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
24 Section 24. Proof of official record.The record of public
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for
any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with
a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the
record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
582
Certified true copies of the cadastral map of Liliw and

the corresponding list of claimants of the area covered by
the map were presented by two public officers. The first
was Crisostomo Arves, Clerk III of the Municipal
Assessors Office, a repository of such documents. The
second was Dominga Tolentino, a DENR employee, who, as
a record officer, certifies and safekeeps records of surveyed
land involving cadastral maps. The cadastral maps and the
list of claimants, as certified true copies of original public
records, fall under the exception to the best evidence rule.
As to the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court similarly provides that entries in official
records are an exception to the rule.25 The rule provides
that entries in official records made in the performance of
the duty of a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The
necessity of this rule consists in the inconvenience and
difficulty of requiring the officials attendance as a witness
to testify to the innumerable transactions in the course of
his duty. The documents trustworthiness consists in the
presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.26
Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The
DENR is the department tasked to execute, supervise and
manage the conduct of cadastral surveys.27 It is, therefore,
clear that the cadastral map and the corresponding list of
claimants qualify as entries in official records as they were
prepared by the DENR, as mandated by law. As such, they
_______________
25Section 44. Entries in official records.Entries in official records
made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines,
or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are

prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
26Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law: Vol. V, (Quezon City, Philippines,
Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2004), p. 740.
27DENR Admin. Order 200123.
583
are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie

evidence of the facts stated therein.
Even granting that the petitioners had not admitted the
partition, they presented no evidence to contradict the
evidence of the respondent spouses. Thus, even without the
admission of the petitioners, the respondent spouses proved
by a preponderance of evidence that there had indeed been
a partition of the subject property.

Sale of 1/3 Portion of the Southernhalf
To prove that 1/3 of the southernhalf portion of the
subject property was sold to them, Spouses Monteiro
presented a deed of sale entitled Bilihan ng Lahat Naming
Karapatan,28 dated September 29, 1992, wherein Pedros
share was sold by his heirs to them, with the acquiescence
of the heirs of Esperanza and Leandro in an Affidavit of
Conformity and Waiver.29 The petitioners argue that the
Bilihan should not have been admitted into evidence
because it lacked the documentary stamp tax required by
Section 201 of the NIRC.
On August 29, 1994, the petitioners filed a motion for
the production and/or inspection of documents,30 praying
that Spouses Monteiro be ordered to produce the deed of
sale, which they cited as the source of their rights as co
owners. On November 20, 1995, Spouses Monteiro
submitted their compliance,31 furnishing the RTC and the
petitioners with a copy32 of the Bilihan. On January 3,
1996, the petitioners filed a notice of consignation,33
manifesting that they had attempted to exercise their right
of redemption as coowners of the 1/3 portion of the
southern half of the property under Article
_______________
28Records, Vol. III, Exhibit C, p. 514.
29Records, Vol. I, pp. 303305.
30Id., at pp. 7576.
31Id., at p. 111.
32Id., at p. 112.
33Id., at pp. 113115.
584
162334 of the Civil Code by sending and tendering payment

of redemption to Spouses Monteiro, which was, however,
returned.
By filing the notice of consignation and tendering their
payment for the redemption of the 1/3 portion of the
southernhalf of the property, the petitioners, in effect,
admitted the existence, due execution and validity of the
Bilihan. Consequently, they are now estopped from
questioning its admissiblity in evidence for relying on such
for their right of redemption. Additionally, the Court notes
that the copy35 of the Bilihan which was originally
submitted by Spouses Monteiro with its compliance filed on
November 20, 1995, does in fact bear a documentary stamp
tax. It could only mean that the documentary stamp tax on
the sale was properly paid. The Bilihan was, therefore,
properly admitted into evidence and considered by the
RTC.
In any case, as correctly held by the lower courts, the
petitioners, as heirs of Vitaliano, who inherited the
northernhalf portion of the subject property, do not
possess the necessary personality to assail the sale of the
southernhalf portion between Spouses Monteiro and the
heirs of Pedro. They are not real partiesininterest who
stand to be benefited or injured by the sale of the 1/3
portion of the southernhalf over which they have
absolutely no right. As correctly ruled by the courts below,
only fellow coowners have the personality to assail the
sale, namely, the heirs of Pedros siblings, Esperanza and
Leandro. They have, however, expressly ac
_______________
34Art. 1623. The right of legal preemption or redemption shall not
be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the
prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale
shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by
an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all
possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of coowners excludes that of adjoining owners.
35Records, Vol. I, p. 112.
585
quiesced to the sale and waived their right to the property

in the affidavit presented by Spouses Monteiro.36 As such,
the petitioners have no right to their counterclaims of
demolition of improvements and payment of damages.
With Spouses Monteiro having sufficiently proved their

claim over the subject 1/3 portion of the southernhalf of
the property through the Bilihan, the lower courts did not
err in awarding possession, rentals, attorneys fees, and
litigation expenses to them.
The Court, however, finds that the award of rentals
should be reckoned from January 2, 2001, the date the
Spouses Monteiro filed their Amended Complaint seeking
recovery of the subject portion. Interest at the rate of 6%
per annum shall also be imposed on the total amount of
rent due from finality of this Decision until fully paid.37
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August
15, 2011 Decision and the March 5, 2012 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, in CAG.R. CV No. 92707 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that:
a. The award of rent at the rate of P500.00 per month
shall be reckoned from January 2, 2001 until the
property is vacated and
b. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be
imposed on the total amount of rent due from finality
of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Leonen,

JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modification.
_______________
36Id., at pp. 303304.
37 Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703
SCRA 439.
586
Notes.Acts of facts admitted do not require proof and

cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the
admission was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made. (Vidar vs. People, 611 SCRA 216
[2010])
Judicial admissions made by parties in the pleadings, or
in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same
case are conclusive and so does not require further evidence
to prove them. (Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company vs. Pingol, 630 SCRA 413 [2013])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

6 - Dimaguila V Monteiro PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 - Dimaguila V Monteiro PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/11/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME714

G.R. No. 201011. January 27, 2014.*

Remedial Law Evidence Admissions Section 4 of Rule 129 of

subject property. Thus, the petitioners are now estopped from

respondent spouses. If anything, the additional evidence they

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

Appeals (CA), in CAG.R. CV No. 92707, which affirmed

executed in their favor by the heirs of Pedro Dimaguila

Production and Inspection of Documents (d) Motion for

and/or Admit Amended Complaint.4 The RTC granted their

sold by his heirs to them through a Bilihan ng Lahat

divided equally between Perfecto and Vitaliano, but denied

Engineer Baltazar F. Mesina testified that he was the

Dominga Tolentino, a record officer of the Department of

WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

ernhalf portions between Perfecto and Vitaliano and that

piece of evidence to the contrary. It stated that the proper

that if a document which did not bear the required

The CA likewise found sufficient basis for the award of

COMPLAINT AND TO GRANT THE

admission was made, the petitioners aver that such was

The assignment of errors boils down to two main issues:

2. Whether the 1/3 portion of the southernhalf of the

Cadm484,15 dated August 6, 1976, showing that the

northern portions, registered as Lot Nos. 876 and 877 and

(b) On September 5, 1945 the brothers PERFECTO and

sole owner of the northern half of the same property the

This contention is unacceptable. It is a purely self

recovery of possession of a portion of the subject property.

spondent spouses, on the ground that they violated the rule

or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified

Certified true copies of the cadastral map of Liliw and

or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are

are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie

162334 of the Civil Code by sending and tendering payment

quiesced to the sale and waived their right to the property

With Spouses Monteiro having sufficiently proved their

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Leonen,

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

Notes.Acts of facts admitted do not require proof and

You might also like